Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt

Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights







                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                  JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA


IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA      )  Case No. GJ-95-1-6
SERVED ON                      )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY )  COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO
                               )  SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER
                               )  TO SHOW CAUSE;  PETITION FOR
                               )  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND
                               )  NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO
                               )  JURISDICTION, WITH
_______________________________)  VERIFICATION


COMES NOW  Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, Sui  Juris, Sovereign  Arizona

Citizen (hereinafter  "Counsel") and  Vice  President  for  Legal

Affairs of  New Life  Health Center  Company,  an  Unincorporated

Business Trust domiciled in the Arizona Republic (hereinafter the

"Company"), to  present this  petition  and  brief  opposing  the

SECOND APPLICATION  FOR ORDER  TO SHOW CAUSE, signed by Robert L.

Miskell (hereinafter  "Miskell")  on  May  23,  1996,  improperly

served at  a physical  location which  is  not  the  "last  known

address" for  lawful service  of process  to the  Company.    The

Company hereby protests this defective service, for the following

reasons:

     (1)  Miskell knows  the correct  physical  location  of  the

Company's administrative offices, where Dr. Burns works.


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 1 of
                               15


     (2)  Counsel and  the Company  are alarmed by the pattern of

falsehoods being  perpetrated  by  Miskell,  even  after  he  was

sanctioned $4,797  for lying  to a federal court in Phoenix.  The

relevant historical record suggests that Miskell will not stop at

lying repeatedly, even to a Court of law and even after sanctions

were imposed, in order to mislead this Court and obtain his ends,

such as they are.

     (3)  Miskell has  most recently attempted to strike from the

official record  of the  instant case documentary evidence of his

misdeeds (see  recent MOTION  TO  STRIKE  addressed  separately).

This attempt  constitutes material  evidence of  his  willingness

further to  obstruct justice  by suppressing  material  evidence.

This latter evidence is relevant and material to the charges of:

     (a)  perjury

     (b)  jury tampering

     (c)  mail fraud

     (d)  obstruction of justice, and

     (e)  contempt of court

which have  now been  properly placed before this honorable Court

and before the currently convened federal Grand Jury.

     Counsel hereby  reserves the  Company's fundamental Right to

have such  charges heard and decided by a qualified jury of Peers

(i.e. Citizens  of Arizona state who are not also citizens of the

United States),  who  are  empowered  by  Law  to  determine  the

relevance and  materiality of  all evidence  placed before  them.

See U.S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 132 (1995).

     Miskell's specific  lies are  now documented for the record,

as follows:


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 2 of
                               15


     In his  SECOND APPLICATION  FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Miskell

misquoted this Court's Order dated May 3, 1995 (see Minute Entry,

same date) as follows:

     Over the objection of the government, Eugene
     Burns' oral motion for a continuance to comply
     with the documents subpoena [sic] is GRANTED.  IT IS
     ORDERED, that Mr. Burns appear before the
     Grand Jury on Wed., May 22, 1996 at 9:10 a.m.
     with copies of the requested documents [sic].

In contrast, the correct paragraph reads as follows:

     Over the objection of the government, Eugene
     Burns' oral motion for a continuance to comply
     with the documents subpoena [sic] is GRANTED.  IT IS
     ORDERED, that Mr. Burns appear before the
     Grand Jury on Wed., May 22, 1996 at 9:10 a.m.
     with copies of the requested document.

                                      [underlined emphasis added]

     Miskell is mis-stating this Court's Order dated May 3, 1996,

by changing  the phrase  "requested document"  (singular) to  the

phrase "requested  documents" (plural)   There  is a  significant

grammatical difference  between the  singular form  of nouns, and

the plural form of nouns, notwithstanding the provisions of Title

1,  United   States  Code.     Court  orders  are  not  statutes.

"Document" is the singular form of this noun;  "documents" is the

plural form of this noun.

     The record  shows that  the original  Order  did  contain  a

grammatical error  in its use of the phrase "documents subpoena",

which error Miskell did quote correctly (but without "[sic]"), to

his credit.   However,  he is  prevented, by  applicable laws and

rules of judicial ethics, from misrepresenting any of the wording

of court orders, now and at all times in the future.

     This Court  will kindly take formal judicial notice that the

Company  has   previously  petitioned   for   clarification   and


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 3 of
                               15


reconsideration of  its Order  of May  3, 1996.   A  hearing  and

decision on  this Petition  have not yet been had.  Specifically,

in the  PRAYER of said petition, the Company requested this Court

to:

     3.   reconsider its order of May 3, 1996, "that Mr. Burns
          appear before the Grand Jury on Wed., May 22, 1996 at
          9:10 a.m. with copies of the requested document [sic]";
          is appearance all that is required?  which document?
          how many copies?

     The Company is entitled to clarification and reconsideration

of this  Order, in  order for  it to be able to know whether this

was:   (1) a  typographical error,  or   (2) a specific intent to

limit the Order to a single document (i.e. "requested document").

If  the   latter,  then   the  Company   is  entitled  to  obtain

clarification as  to which  specific document this Court intended

Dr. Burns  to copy  and to  bring with  Him during  His  required

appearance before the Grand Jury.

     In either  case, the  Company and  Dr. Burns are entitled to

know if,  and how, they can be compelled to produce private books

and  records   without  also   violating  the  Fourth  and  Fifth

Amendments in  the Constitution for the United States of America,

as lawfully  amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution").  See line

15 on  page 27  of 37  in  the  Company's  Petition  to  Clarify,

Reconsider, Mandate  and Order,  in which  the Company petitioned

this Court to:

     6.   order the  office of  the  United  States  Attorney  to
          prepare  a   Memorandum  of   Points  and   Authorities
          explaining how  Dr. Burns  can be  compelled to deliver
          the Company's  books and  records  to  the  grand  jury
          without also  violating any  of His  or  the  Company's
          fundamental, unalienable Rights;

     Miskell goes  on to  state, "The  Court's  granting  of  the

continuance was  a result  of Mr.  Burn's [sic] representation to


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 4 of
                               15


the Court that he would produce the records, but needed more time

to copy  them."   Although the  Company  does  not  dispute  this

isolated statement,  Miskell misrepresents  the overall situation

by failing  to recognize  and incorporate  the  NOTICE  OF  OFFER

WITHDRAWAL  which  was  subsequently  made  by  the  Company  and

Counsel.   This NOTICE was formally served upon Miskell and filed

in the  official Court  record.  Concealing what should have been

disclosed is  a fraud.   See definition of "fraud" in Black's Law

Dictionary, fifth edition, to wit:

     A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words
     or by  conduct, by  false or  misleading allegations,  or by
     concealment of  that which should have been disclosed, which
     deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall
     act upon it to his legal injury. ...  It comprises all acts,
     omissions, and concealments involving a breach of a legal or
     equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.

                                                 [emphasis added]

Furthermore, Miskell  now seeks  to strike said NOTICE completely

from the court record, together with all of its attachments.

     Specifically, prejudice  upon the  Company and  upon Counsel

resulted  from   this  Court's   decision  to   deny  Counsel  an

opportunity to  address the  Court at  the hearings  on April 25,

1996, and  on May  3, 1996.   "Prejudice  will be  inferred  from

denial of  assistance of  counsel."  See Audett v. U.S., 265 F.2d

837 (emphasis  added);  also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468

(1938) quoted infra.

     A  demonstrable   consequence  of  this  prejudice  was  the

reversible error  which Dr.  Burns  committed  by  "offering"  to

produce the  subpoenaed books  and records  without first hearing

Counsel  demonstrate   how  the  Company,  as  an  Unincorporated

Business Trust  organization, enjoys  all  the  same  fundamental


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 5 of
                               15


Rights, Privileges,  and Immunities  enjoyed by  all  common  law

Citizens of Arizona state who are not also citizens of the United

States.   See Privileges and Immunities Clause;  State v. Fowler,

41 La.  Ann. 380,  6 S. 602 (1889).  Said "offer" was, therefore,

not  a   knowing,  intentional,   and  voluntary  act  done  with

sufficient awareness  of the  relevant circumstances  and  likely

consequences.   See Brady  v. U.S.,  397 U.S.  742 at 748 (1970).

Said NOTICE contained the following explicit reversal:

     Dr. Burns  erred, and  hereby reverses  the error  which  He
     committed,  by   implying  that   He  had,  KIV  [knowingly,
     intentionally  and   voluntarily],  chosen   to  waive   His
     fundamental,  unalienable  Immunities  against  unreasonable
     search and seizure and against providing compelled testimony
     against Himself.   [citing Privileges and Immunities Clause,
     Boyd v.  U.S., 116  U.S. 746 (1886), 28 U.S.C. 453, State v.
     Wilson, 519 P.2d 228]

             [Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order]
                             [Page 4 of 37, beginning at line 12]

     Another demonstrable  consequence of  this prejudice is that

it ousts  this Court  of jurisdiction.   Effective  assistance of

Counsel is  a fundamental  Right which is guaranteed by the Sixth

Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.  "If the state should deprive

a person [of] the benefit of counsel, it would not be due process

of law."   Powell  v. Alabama,  287 U.S.  45, 68-70.  The Company

requires the  guiding hand  of  counsel  at  every  step  in  the

proceedings against  it.   Powell supra.  "If this requirement of

the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has

jurisdiction to  proceed."   Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468

(1938).   The Sixth  Amendment stands  as a  jurisdictional  bar.

"...  [C]ompliance   with  this   constitutional  mandate  is  an

essential  jurisdictional   prerequisite  to  a  federal  court's

authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty."  Johnson

v. Zerbst supra at 467.


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 6 of
                               15


     Miskell makes further false and misrepresentative statements

in his SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE when he charges

that:

     ... [N]ew  Life  Health  Center  Company  and  its  managing
     director, Eugene  Burns, have now violated two court orders:
     (1) the original grand jury subpoena which required New Life
     Health Center  Company to  provide certain financial records
     to the  grand jury  on March  27, 1996  and (2)  the Court's
     order of May 3, 1996.

     On behalf  of the  Company, Counsel  strenuously objects  to

this false  and misrepresentative statement, because it calls for

a conclusion of Law which is supported neither by the record, nor

by the facts of this case as heretofore documented in the record.

The record  in this  case shows that the Company responded to the

original grand  jury subpoena  with its PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION,

addressed to  the Grand  Jury Foreperson  and sent via Registered

United States  Mail, with  Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery

both requested.

     The Company  cannot be  faulted in  the  slightest  for  the

evident failure of this PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION to arrive at its

intended destination,  because the  record now  shows that it was

obstructed, most  probably by  the office  of the  United  States

Attorney in  Tucson,  Arizona,  in  a  knowing,  intentional  and

voluntary violation of applicable federal laws.

     More specifically, in its AFFIDAVIT OF CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS

TO O.S.C.,  the Company  argued that  the alleged  agents of  the

United States  who brought  the instant  action  petitioned  this

honorable Court  with unclean hands and a fraud upon the Court by

misrepresenting that  the Company  failed to "appear" in response

to said subpoena:


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 7 of
                               15


     10.  The Company  argues from  all of  the  above  that  the
     agents of  the United  States who brought the instant action
     petitioned this  honorable Court with unclean hands and with
     a  fraud   upon  this   Court,   among   other   things   by
     misrepresenting to this Court that the Company had failed to
     "appear" in  response to  said subpoena.   It  is well known
     that "appearances" can be made in writing, because an answer
     constitutes an  "appearance."   Wieser v. Richter, 247 Mich.
     52, 225  N.W. 542,  543.   See the  several  definitions  of
     "appearance" in  Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition with
     Guide to  Pronunciation.   The Registered letter cited supra
     was the Company's "answer" to said subpoena.

                   [AFFIDAVIT OF CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS TO O.S.C.]
                     [Page 5 of 13, paragraph 10, emphasis added]

     Although it attempted to do so, the Company did not "appear"

before  the   grand  jury   because  its   written  answer  (read

"appearance") was  not delivered  to the  grand jury  Foreperson,

even though  this answer  was mailed via Registered United States

Mail, with  Return Receipt  and  Restricted  Delivery  requested;

this answer,  entitled PRIVILEGED  COMMUNICATION,  was,  instead,

intercepted and  obstructed, in felonious violation of applicable

federal laws.   The  answer's  conspicuous  title  --  PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATION --  should have  been enough to warn Miskell of the

serious nature  of the  document he eventually admitted to having

in his possession.

     Miskell also  included  a  telling  footnote  to  his  false

accusation that  Dr. Burns  and the Company violated the original

grand jury  subpoena (see  footnote 1  on page  2 of  his  SECOND

APPLICATION FOR  ORDER TO  SHOW CAUSE).   The  following footnote

makes an  erroneous conclusion  of law because it is founded on a

false and rebuttable premise:


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 8 of
                               15


     It should  be noted  that as  managing director,  Mr.  Burns
     [sic] can  be held  responsible in a contempt proceeding for
     New Life  Health Center Company's failure to comply with the
     subpoena.   As the  Ninth Circuit  explained in  a  criminal
     contempt case:   "An  order to a corporation binds those who
     are legally  responsible for the conduct of its affairs. ...
     De facto  as well  as de  jure officers  are responsible for
     enabling a  corporation to  comply with  orders directed  to
     it."   United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 535 (9th Cir.
     1988).
                                                 [emphasis added]

     Miskell has been repeatedly presented with evidence that the

Company is  an Unincorporated  Business Trust  domiciled  in  the

Arizona Republic:   in spoken statements to this honorable Court,

in affidavits filed with this Court, and in the opening paragraph

of almost every pleading which has been filed in the instant case

and also  served on Miskell via first class U.S. Mail (see Proofs

of Service).   Miskell  has failed to rebut said affidavits (e.g.

AFFIDAVIT OF  CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS TO O.S.C.)  Accordingly, they

have become the truth of the case  (a maxim of common law).

     Nevertheless, Miskell's  only other  response at present has

been to  move this  Court for  an order to strike said affidavits

and pleadings  for the only reason that Counsel is not a licensed

attorney.   See Haynes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.  Such a motion is

founded on  a false  premise, and  is  being  made  for  criminal

motives and  without regard for the judicial policy applicable to

litigants proceeding in propria persona.

     Miskell has  argued  that  Counsel  cannot  "represent"  the

Company, nor  file such  affidavits and  pleadings,  because  the

Company is  a "corporation"  and only  a  licensed  attorney  can

"represent" a  corporation.   On behalf  of the  Company, Counsel

wishes to  point out  that the  Ninth Circuit  authority cited by

Miskell supra  has no  application  whatsoever  to  the  Company,

specifically because  the Company is not a corporation.  How many

times must  the Company  reiterate this  point?  On behalf of the


Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 9 of
                               15


Company, Counsel  hereby protests  the barratry  now  evident  in

Miskell's conduct.  See State v. Batson, 17 S.E.2d 511, 512-513.

     With respect to Miskell's second allegation that the Company

and its  managing director  have also violated this Court's Order

of May  3,  1996,  Miskell  himself  stated  that  "Eugene  Burns

appeared before  the grand  jury."  Miskell is objecting that Dr.

Burns did  not, however,  provide any of the financial records of

New Life  Health Center  Company requested  by the subpoena.  See

SECOND APPLICATION  FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, page 2, paragraph 2.

     A careful  review of  the Order of May 3, 1996, reveals that

Dr. Burns  was not  required by  said Order to provide any of the

financial records of the Company requested by the subpoena.

     Said Order  contained no  such language.   It merely ordered

Dr. Burns  to  "appear,"  which  He  did,  "with  copies  of  the

requested document."   Since  Dr. Burns  was unclear  as  to  the

specific document  with which  this  Court  had  ordered  Him  to

appear,  and   since  the   Company  had   previously   requested

clarification of  this specific  point (i.e. which document), Dr.

Burns came  with copies  of this  Court's Order, so as to make it

absolutely clear  to the  members  of  the  Grand  Jury,  and  to

Miskell, that  He (Burns)   was  complying with  the Order to the

best of  His knowledge  and ability,  without also waiving any of

His fundamental Rights.  See Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

     At the  same time, during His appearance Dr. Burns attempted

to exercise  His Right  to Petition  the Grand  Jury for a formal

investigation into  His charges that Miskell has been involved in

mail fraud,  jury tampering,  and obstruction  of justice  in the

instant case.   He  did this  by bringing  copies of  documentary


 Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 10
                              of 15


evidence proving  that Miskell  had committed  the aforementioned

felonies,  but   Miskell  prevented  Him  from  presenting  these

documents to the Grand Jury by ordering Dr. Burns not to give the

Grand Jury anything.  Then, Miskell asked, "Dr. Burns, do the two

boxes contain  the financial  records of the Company?"  Dr. Burns

answered, "No,  I was  not ordered  to bring them."  Then Miskell

asked, "What  is in  the boxes?"   Dr. Burns answered, "I'll show

you."

     Dr. Burns  then opened the top box and gave Miskell one copy

of a  thick Velo-bound volume and left a second identical copy on

the top of the opened box for the Grand Jury, but nobody took it.

The thick,  Velo-bound volume  contained the  Company's NOTICE OF

OFFER    WITHDRAWAL;     PETITION    FOR    CLARIFICATION,    FOR

RECONSIDERATION, FOR  WRIT OF  MANDAMUS, AND  FOR ORDERS  TO SHOW

CAUSE;   WITH POINTS  AND  AUTHORITIES,  including  all  attached

exhibits.

     To his  credit, Miskell  did enter the aforementioned volume

into evidence  by giving  it to  an unidentified  member  of  the

federal Grand  Jury.   However, while Dr. Burns was still present

in the  Grand Jury  room, Miskell  did not  deliver the remaining

eleven (11)  copies of  the volume  to the  Grand Jury.   Counsel

argues that  the controlling  law in  this situation  holds  that

Miskell commits  a felony  each and  every time  he  attempts  to

prevent the delivery of such evidence to a federal Grand Jury.

     As Miskell frankly stated in the hearing on May 3, 1996, the

intercepted parcel contained the original FORMAL REQUEST that the

grand jury  investigate possible  violations of  federal  law  by

Miskell himself.  The thick Velo-bound volumes contained true and


 Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 11
                              of 15


correct copies  of this  FORMAL REQUEST, delivery of which to the

Grand Jury remains an open question.

     The Company  reserves its  fundamental Right to know if, and

when, the  original FORMAL REQUEST, and the remaining eleven (11)

volumes, were  ever delivered  to the  Grand Jury,  because  this

FORMAL REQUEST  and these Velo-bound volumes constitute Petitions

to Government for Redress of Grievances, the delivery of which is

a sacred,  fundamental Right  protected  and  guaranteed  by  the

Petition Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

     Miskell has  also stated,  on record,  that a  copy  of  the

transcript of Dr. Burns' appearance before the grand jury will be

provided to  the  Court  for  in  camera  review.    The  Company

strenuously objects  to this statement and to this offer, because

Miskell's demonstrated  habit of  repeated prevarication provides

probable cause for this Court, and for the Grand Jury to suspect,

and to  investigate, additional  perjury and  tampering with  the

evidence such as that which is contained in said transcript.

     The Company  hereby demands  an opportunity  to  review  the

transcript, in  closed hearing, in order carefully and critically

to  review   it  for   probable  perjury   by  Miskell   and  his

accomplice(s), including  Ms.  Evangelina  Cardenas,  an  alleged

"Special Agent" of the "Internal Revenue Service."

     On  behalf   of  the  Company,  Counsel  hereby  places  all

interested parties  on formal  Notice of the Company's MEMORANDUM

OF  POINTS   AND  AUTHORITIES,  provided  under  separate  cover,

supporting  the   Company's  argument   that  this   Court   lost

jurisdiction when it denied the Company the assistance of Counsel

at the hearings on April 25, 1996, and on May 3, 1996.


 Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 12
                              of 15


     To this  end, Counsel  hereby petitions this honorable Court

for a  supplemental Order  to the  Office of  the  United  States

Attorney to  show cause  why this  Court did  not oust  itself of

jurisdiction when  it denied the Company the effective assistance

of its  Counsel of choice at said hearings, ruling arbitrarily as

it did  that Company officer Dr. Eugene A. Burns was permitted to

address the  Court, but Paul Andrew Mitchell was not permitted to

address the  Court, even  after He  (Mitchell) was  appointed  an

Officer of  the Company  (i.e. Vice  President for Legal Affairs)

and even though the Company is not a corporation.

     When jurisdiction  is challenged  in  writing,  it  must  be

demonstrated in  writing, on  the record.   See Hagans v. Lavine,

415 U.S. 533;  Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502.  The proponent

of a  rule carries  the burden  of proving its application in the

instant case.  See 5 U.S.C. 556(d).


                          RELIEF SOUGHT

     On behalf of the Company, Counsel respectfully requests this

honorable Court:

     (1) to  deny Miskell's  SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE, for the reasons stated above;

     (2) to  honor its  demand for  an opportunity  carefully and

critically to  review, in  closed hearing,  the transcript of Dr.

Burns' appearance  before the  Grand Jury  for possible tampering

with evidence contained therein;  and

     (3) to grant this Petition for an Order to the Office of the

United States  Attorney to show cause why this Court did not oust

itself of  jurisdiction when  it denied the Company the effective

assistance of  its Counsel  of choice during the hearings held in

the instant case on April 25, 1996, and on May 3, 1996.


 Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 13
                              of 15


                          VERIFICATION

     The undersigned  hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury,

under the  laws of  the United  States of  America,  without  the

"United States,"  that the  above statements of fact are true and

correct, to  the best  of his current information, knowledge, and

belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Executed on May 30, 1996


/s/ Eugene A. Burns

Dr. Eugene A. Burns, D.C., N.D.
Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


 Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 14
                              of 15


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Linda  H. Burns,  hereby certify,  under penalty  of  perjury,

under the  laws of  the United  States of  America,  without  the

United States,  that I  am at least 18 years of age and a Citizen

of one of the United States of America, that I am not currently a

Party to  this action, and that I personally served the following

document:
                     COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO
           SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
             PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;  and
              NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION,
                        WITH VERIFICATION

by placing  said document  in first class U.S. Mail, with postage

prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:

ROBERT L. MISKELL                  John M. Roll
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310      U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue            55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona

JANET NAPOLITANO                   Clerk
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310      U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue            55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona

Grand Jury Foreperson              Postmaster
In re: New Life Health Center Co.  U.S. Post Office
55 E. Broadway                     Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona

Judge Alex Kozinski                Evangelina Cardenas
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals     "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200     300 West Congress
Pasadena, California               Tucson, Arizona

Attorney General                   Solicitor General
Department of Justice              Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W. !      10th and Constitution, N.W. !
Washington, D.C.                   Washington, D.C.


Dated:  May 30, 1996

/s/ Linda Burns
________________________________________
Linda H. Burns, Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


 Opposition to 2nd Application for Order to Show Cause:  Page 15
                              of 15


                             #  #  #


Return to the Table of Contents for

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY